Have fun with your trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith dont like $3 a gallon, blame Big Oil. For years now they could have built new or increased refining capacity here or more easily abroad and simply shipped product into the US. Why havent they done this? Because they are too smart to kill the Cash Cow Its has little anymore to do with environmental issues, if it did gas prices would only be high in those markets where special blend gas is required by law, yet prices are going up nationwide. Instead Big Oil has learned the lesson of Enron, choke the supply, make up excusses for it (real or artificial), and reap windfall profits Keep refining capacity low by intentially limiting production capacity by intentially withholding expansion or new facility construction, thus causing strain on worldwide oil demands, add in do everything lobbyingly possible to prevent increases in milage or efficiency regulation standards, aided by an Oil Freindly political machine = extreme oil profits year after year. Is anyone here going to explain how a company that making MULTI-BILLIONS of dollars in PURE PROFIT every QUARTER cannot afford to build new capacity? The only answer is pure GREED. Its like Andrew Carnegie, the world richest man at the time and noted world class level greedy-ba$tard cheap-skate, when told by his Doctor that he should have a glass of Champaigne every night to help him sleep, bitterly complained that "I'm telling Doc, I just can't afford it, will Soda-water do?" Pure Greed
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Will any of you guys put the blame where it belongs, namely environmental idiocy? Or will you like most poorly educated Americans continue to blame "big oil" for these bureaucratic-induced problems? The article is clear on this point: Without the lawsuit shield for MBTE producers, refiners will not produce it so that EPA fuel additive standards can be met. Subsequently, there simply are not enough tankers out there necessary to meet the need to replace MBTE with ethanol, so what happens as a result? Higher pump prices. And who gets the blame? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not the EPA. Big Oil. And why does Big Oil get the blame? Because that's what poorly educated Americans are told by CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, et al newscasters, while our kids are told the same BS in college, in high schools, even in elementary schools. Subsequently, people complain to their Senators and representatives that Big Oil is gouging the consumer, so who is it who gets hauled before the Senate to explain why gas prices are going up? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not EPA officials. Big Oil. For once, just once in my lifetime, I would like to see the Senate grow some collective testicles and haul the leaders of the major environmental groups in front of the Senate to explain why their constant hyperbole is justified, why their continued access to taxpayer subsidies and 501c tax exemptions are justified, why anyone should ever again take any of their "causes" seriously, and why they should not be held accountable (including prison time) for their fraudulent claims? 'Cause that's what all this is really about. Uh, but it's still MTBE, not MBTE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), . Get it right. Also, why should the government or anyone else shield a manufacturer from the damage caused by their unreasonably dangerous product? I don't want MTBE in my drinking water... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Will any of you guys put the blame where it belongs, namely environmental idiocy? Or will you like most poorly educated Americans continue to blame "big oil" for these bureaucratic-induced problems? The article is clear on this point: Without the lawsuit shield for MBTE producers, refiners will not produce it so that EPA fuel additive standards can be met. Subsequently, there simply are not enough tankers out there necessary to meet the need to replace MBTE with ethanol, so what happens as a result? Higher pump prices. And who gets the blame? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not the EPA. Big Oil. And why does Big Oil get the blame? Because that's what poorly educated Americans are told by CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, et al newscasters, while our kids are told the same BS in college, in high schools, even in elementary schools. Subsequently, people complain to their Senators and representatives that Big Oil is gouging the consumer, so who is it who gets hauled before the Senate to explain why gas prices are going up? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not EPA officials. Big Oil. For once, just once in my lifetime, I would like to see the Senate grow some collective testicles and haul the leaders of the major environmental groups in front of the Senate to explain why their constant hyperbole is justified, why their continued access to taxpayer subsidies and 501c tax exemptions are justified, why anyone should ever again take any of their "causes" seriously, and why they should not be held accountable (including prison time) for their fraudulent claims? 'Cause that's what all this is really about.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Will any of you guys put the blame where it belongs, namely environmental idiocy? Or will you like most poorly educated Americans continue to blame "big oil" for these bureaucratic-induced problems? The article is clear on this point: Without the lawsuit shield for MBTE producers, refiners will not produce it so that EPA fuel additive standards can be met. Subsequently, there simply are not enough tankers out there necessary to meet the need to replace MBTE with ethanol, so what happens as a result? Higher pump prices. And who gets the blame? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not the EPA. Big Oil. And why does Big Oil get the blame? Because that's what poorly educated Americans are told by CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, et al newscasters, while our kids are told the same BS in college, in high schools, even in elementary schools. Subsequently, people complain to their Senators and representatives that Big Oil is gouging the consumer, so who is it who gets hauled before the Senate to explain why gas prices are going up? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not EPA officials. Big Oil. For once, just once in my lifetime, I would like to see the Senate grow some collective testicles and haul the leaders of the major environmental groups in front of the Senate to explain why their constant hyperbole is justified, why their continued access to taxpayer subsidies and 501c tax exemptions are justified, why anyone should ever again take any of their "causes" seriously, and why they should not be held accountable (including prison time) for their fraudulent claims? 'Cause that's what all this is really about. Uh, but it's still MTBE, not MBTE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), . Get it right. Also, why should the government or anyone else shield a manufacturer from the damage caused by their unreasonably dangerous product? I don't want MTBE in my drinking water... LC Oh right, after all the misspellings and grammatical errors from your side, that's the best you can do? Try to stay on subject for once. Like your question why MTBE manufacturers should be shielded from lawsuits via federal exemption. There's one exponentially apt reason why Congress should shield MTBE manufacturers from lawsuits -BECAUSE IT WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT MADE THE FUEL ADDITIVE REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! The EPA was the one that pushed MTBE onto the public before a sufficient testing period. Whatever happened to the philosophy of mitigating unintended consequences of federal mandates?
QUOTE: Originally posted by garr QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 [ The nuke plants in IL all seem to be leaking glow in the dark water nowadays. Do you have any links to news stories or government/enviromental group investigations on this specific subject? Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 [ The nuke plants in IL all seem to be leaking glow in the dark water nowadays.
QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 QUOTE: Originally posted by garr QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 [ The nuke plants in IL all seem to be leaking glow in the dark water nowadays. Do you have any links to news stories or government/enviromental group investigations on this specific subject? Jay No I don't offhand, but it's been all over the news lately. Two plants over by Joliet, IL and one up in Byron(near Rockford) IL have all sprung leaks in the coolant water here and there. My bad, it was more of a sarcastic remark than anything.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Couldn't refineries be built in Idaho? Doesn't seem like they have any concerns about polution.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Will any of you guys put the blame where it belongs, namely environmental idiocy? Or will you like most poorly educated Americans continue to blame "big oil" for these bureaucratic-induced problems? The article is clear on this point: Without the lawsuit shield for MBTE producers, refiners will not produce it so that EPA fuel additive standards can be met. Subsequently, there simply are not enough tankers out there necessary to meet the need to replace MBTE with ethanol, so what happens as a result? Higher pump prices. And who gets the blame? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not the EPA. Big Oil. And why does Big Oil get the blame? Because that's what poorly educated Americans are told by CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, et al newscasters, while our kids are told the same BS in college, in high schools, even in elementary schools. Subsequently, people complain to their Senators and representatives that Big Oil is gouging the consumer, so who is it who gets hauled before the Senate to explain why gas prices are going up? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not EPA officials. Big Oil. For once, just once in my lifetime, I would like to see the Senate grow some collective testicles and haul the leaders of the major environmental groups in front of the Senate to explain why their constant hyperbole is justified, why their continued access to taxpayer subsidies and 501c tax exemptions are justified, why anyone should ever again take any of their "causes" seriously, and why they should not be held accountable (including prison time) for their fraudulent claims? 'Cause that's what all this is really about. Uh, but it's still MTBE, not MBTE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), . Get it right. Also, why should the government or anyone else shield a manufacturer from the damage caused by their unreasonably dangerous product? I don't want MTBE in my drinking water... LC Oh right, after all the misspellings and grammatical errors from your side, that's the best you can do? Try to stay on subject for once. Like your question why MTBE manufacturers should be shielded from lawsuits via federal exemption. There's one exponentially apt reason why Congress should shield MTBE manufacturers from lawsuits -BECAUSE IT WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT MADE THE FUEL ADDITIVE REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! The EPA was the one that pushed MTBE onto the public before a sufficient testing period. Whatever happened to the philosophy of mitigating unintended consequences of federal mandates? FM, FM, FM... Your lack of any remote grip on how public policy is intended to work is surpassed only by your extreme arrogance in always needing to be right... The government screws up (like that never happens) and we should have our Constitutional Rights abridged and our air and water poisoned so some oil companies can make more money, oh puhleeeeese... It's like I told you before: DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE!! What a concept... FOFLMAO... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Couldn't refineries be built in Idaho? Doesn't seem like they have any concerns about polution. Yes, you could build a refinery in Idaho, or Nevada, or Vermont, or Anywhere USA. But usually they build the refineries where there is access to crude oil, either from a local source or a tanker terminal. It would be like putting on a Playboy coed tryout in Wisconsin. A complete waste of time![:D] And given that Idaho has some of the cleanest air and water quality in the US, perhaps we aren't all anal like them blue states about feelgood pollution regulations. Speaking of which, why is it that the cleanest states in the US are also some of the reddest (e.g. conservative)? Could it be that hard core environmentalism results in more pollution rather than less?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Will any of you guys put the blame where it belongs, namely environmental idiocy? Or will you like most poorly educated Americans continue to blame "big oil" for these bureaucratic-induced problems? The article is clear on this point: Without the lawsuit shield for MBTE producers, refiners will not produce it so that EPA fuel additive standards can be met. Subsequently, there simply are not enough tankers out there necessary to meet the need to replace MBTE with ethanol, so what happens as a result? Higher pump prices. And who gets the blame? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not the EPA. Big Oil. And why does Big Oil get the blame? Because that's what poorly educated Americans are told by CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, et al newscasters, while our kids are told the same BS in college, in high schools, even in elementary schools. Subsequently, people complain to their Senators and representatives that Big Oil is gouging the consumer, so who is it who gets hauled before the Senate to explain why gas prices are going up? Big Oil. Not the Sierra Club. Not EPA officials. Big Oil. For once, just once in my lifetime, I would like to see the Senate grow some collective testicles and haul the leaders of the major environmental groups in front of the Senate to explain why their constant hyperbole is justified, why their continued access to taxpayer subsidies and 501c tax exemptions are justified, why anyone should ever again take any of their "causes" seriously, and why they should not be held accountable (including prison time) for their fraudulent claims? 'Cause that's what all this is really about. Uh, but it's still MTBE, not MBTE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), . Get it right. Also, why should the government or anyone else shield a manufacturer from the damage caused by their unreasonably dangerous product? I don't want MTBE in my drinking water... LC Oh right, after all the misspellings and grammatical errors from your side, that's the best you can do? Try to stay on subject for once. Like your question why MTBE manufacturers should be shielded from lawsuits via federal exemption. There's one exponentially apt reason why Congress should shield MTBE manufacturers from lawsuits -BECAUSE IT WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT MADE THE FUEL ADDITIVE REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! The EPA was the one that pushed MTBE onto the public before a sufficient testing period. Whatever happened to the philosophy of mitigating unintended consequences of federal mandates? FM, FM, FM... Your lack of any remote grip on how public policy is intended to work is surpassed only by your extreme arrogance in always needing to be right... The government screws up (like that never happens) and we should have our Constitutional Rights abridged and our air and water poisoned so some oil companies can make more money, oh puhleeeeese... It's like I told you before: DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE!! What a concept... FOFLMAO... LC As usual, more insults and overcongradulatory albeit subhumorous attempts at wit. And he still can't address the gist of the topic to which he alluded. I'll put it in a context that you can understand. Why should MTBE producers be subjected to unmitigated lawsuits, yet railroads be exempted from antitrust laws?
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Couldn't refineries be built in Idaho? Doesn't seem like they have any concerns about polution. Yes, you could build a refinery in Idaho, or Nevada, or Vermont, or Anywhere USA. But usually they build the refineries where there is access to crude oil, either from a local source or a tanker terminal. It would be like putting on a Playboy coed tryout in Wisconsin. A complete waste of time![:D] And given that Idaho has some of the cleanest air and water quality in the US, perhaps we aren't all anal like them blue states about feelgood pollution regulations. Speaking of which, why is it that the cleanest states in the US are also some of the reddest (e.g. conservative)? Could it be that hard core environmentalism results in more pollution rather than less? Last I knew, crude could be piped quite some distance. It seems to me that the absence of feelgood pollution regulations and the associated costs would easily justify the cost of the pipeline.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear Gas may soon cost $3 a gallon in North Texas; Railroads scrambling to find tank car capacity for ethanol North Texas motorists are facing a potential spike in gasoline prices in coming weeks comparable to the one after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year. MTBE is being set aside as a fuel additive because of environmental and liability concerns, and railroads and oil companies are struggling to provide enough corn-based ethanol to replace it and allow the Dallas-Fort Worth area to meet federal emissions standards. The government issued a warning last month, and the markets are responding. The wholesale price of unleaded gasoline rose more than 30 percent to $1.95 per gallon in trading Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That is the highest price since it reached $2 per gallon in September and October on shortages caused by damage from the hurricanes. Add the state and federal taxes of 38.4 cents per gallon in Texas, plus storage and transportation charges, and it’s no surprise that predictions of retail gasoline prices of $2.75 to $3 per gallon by summer have abounded. The U.S. Department of Energy said last month that because of bottlenecks in the ethanol-supply chain, North Texas and Houston face potential spot shortages of gasoline during the late spring and early summer, when demand typically rises. “So far all the talk about ethanol has made the price of gasoline go up, and it will probably go up further,” said Bob Harris, a Fort Worth wholesale gasoline distributor. Lynton Allred, president of the Texas Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, said of ethanol, “There’s going to be a lot of problems getting the fuel to the user.” The ethanol will be needed after May05 to replace methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), used as an additive to reduce pollutants during the summer in Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and other major cities, mostly on the East Coast. MTBE has been used in Houston metro areas for the past decade to cut sulfur emissions and help those areas and Dallas-Fort Worth come closer to compliance with federal clean-air standards. MTBE is toxic and, absent a requested waiver from Congress shielding producers from lawsuits, major refiners have said they will quit using MTBE by early May. Ethanol, a nonfossil fuel, is the only large-volume alternative available. Questions have been raised about the ability of the nation’s 90 ethanol plants, most of them in Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois and South Dakota, to meet the demand. Last year those plants made 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol, mostly to use in E-85 gasoline sold at stations in the Corn Belt and, more recently, in California. E-85 is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Total U.S. ethanol production was 3 percent of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that the U.S. burns every year. Also, because ethanol has different chemical properties, it can’t be moved in conventional oil and gasoline pipelines. Three-quarters of ethanol moves by rail, and both the BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad said this week that they are scrambling to find tanker-car capacity and arrange to deliver and store the ethanol that will be shipped south to Texas. The oil industry, which until this year kept its distance from the growing ethanol industry, has pledged to provide local storage terminals. There, the ethanol and refined gasoline will be mixed at a ratio of about 1-to-10. Exxon Mobil spokesman Dave Gardner said this week that Exxon Mobil’s Irving terminal could store ethanol. Other big gasoline suppliers, including Shell and Valero, have made similar commitments. Mixing ethanol and gasoline at storage terminal sites will be a significant logistic change for oil companies accustomed to mixing gasoline and MTBE at their Gulf coast refineries and moving the product in regular pipelines. Storage tanks and tanker trucks must be cleaned and all traces of water removed before ethanol can be injected. Ethanol, unlike gasoline, doesn’t naturally separate from water. The U.S. Department of Energy’s warning of spot shortages touched off a bullish frenzy for gasoline in commodity markets that motorists will feel in the coming weeks. Average prices for regular self-serve unleaded gasoline in Tarrant County have risen to $2.48 per gallon from $2.10 per gallon in the past month, according to fortworthgasprices.com, despite what the Department of Energy says are ample supplies of crude oil. Ethanol got its latest boost last year when the 2005 energy bill passed by Congress renewed subsidies for the fuel and omitted a provision, requested by U.S. Reps. Tom DeLay and Joe Barton of Texas, that would have shielded the Houston-area manufacturers of MTBE from liability lawsuits. Major oil companies said they would no longer use MTBE as an “extender” after May. Midwestern politicians, aided every four years by the Iowa presidential caucuses, have long touted corn-based ethanol as a fuel, particularly after the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s sensitized Americans to their dependence on foreign sources. But the use of ethanol faded during the 1980s and ’90s when the price of gasoline, fed by ample supplies of crude oil, dipped to as low as $1 per gallon. - Dan Piller, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.